As for the lack of stacking in recent Civ games. That's a step in the wrong direction, from a strategy POV because it increases micromanagement of battles; and it's a very gamey mechanism that has nothing to do with simulation. That is certainly something I'd hate to see in Paradox's grand strategy games. Besides that is hardly a "fundamental" innovation, since it's just totally obvious you can stack or not… Hex based maps are as old as war games are…

I think I understand a little bit where you are coming from, but for me, I'd have to say that I have the complete opposite opinion. Removing "stacks of doom" is what revived my interest in Civ, having "burned out" on Civ up to that point - I never could get into Civ 4 because I was so tired of how warfare played out, and because warfare is such a major part of Civ, I just couldn't stomach the stacks anymore. If Civ had the same depth as Paradox games in other facets of gameplay, I might not have minded the stacks as much, but to me, throwing stacks at each other just made the experience seem a little bit shallow.

Paradox's games, however, don't focus quite so heavily on warfare. Sure, it's there in heavy doses, but it has so much more depth to the other mechanics that I don't mind the simple warfare aspects. Still, I would greatly appreciate more direct control in these situations. A grid or hex-based solution might not have been the best answer for Civ, but for me, it added much more tactical depth and actual meaning to troop type, placement, formations, battle-lines, movement, etc.

Basically, I personally prefer as much direct control over outcomes as possible, especially when it comes to warfare. Whether I win or lose should depend on my tactical abilities and awareness, not how big my stack is.

But the game itself was pretty amazing - super deep and involved. And by the time I reviewed the Mac version it was super clean.

I wasn't a big fan of the game post-patches, really - because ultimately - I don't think the engine is suited for such involved warfare. It's too unwieldy for what I think should be a much more tactical and hands-on approach to war.

I liked how you could assign "goals" and sort of automate what your armies should go for - but the combat system is really, really bad.

It profoundly lacks tangible and visual feedback - and it's WAY too abstract for my tastes.

Seems to me your armies are moving all over the place, and it's all but impossible to establish where they're going - and how they're doing. You're constantly interrupted by a zillion messages pausing the game (and if you disable them, you're lost) - and the flow is just really bad.

But I love everything else about HoI - in concept. The scope is amazing.

Originally Posted by Nerevarine
I think I understand a little bit where you are coming from, but for me, I'd have to say that I have the complete opposite opinion. Removing "stacks of doom" is what revived my interest in Civ, having "burned out" on Civ up to that point - I never could get into Civ 4 because I was so tired of how warfare played out, and because warfare is such a major part of Civ, I just couldn't stomach the stacks anymore. If Civ had the same depth as Paradox games in other facets of gameplay, I might not have minded the stacks as much, but to me, throwing stacks at each other just made the experience seem a little bit shallow.

Paradox's games, however, don't focus quite so heavily on warfare. Sure, it's there in heavy doses, but it has so much more depth to the other mechanics that I don't mind the simple warfare aspects. Still, I would greatly appreciate more direct control in these situations. A grid or hex-based solution might not have been the best answer for Civ, but for me, it added much more tactical depth and actual meaning to troop type, placement, formations, battle-lines, movement, etc.

Basically, I personally prefer as much direct control over outcomes as possible, especially when it comes to warfare. Whether I win or lose should depend on my tactical abilities and awareness, not how big my stack is.

Thoughtful post. But, I think, at heart Paradox games are historical political and economic simulators. From that point of view "War is the continuation of politics by other means" (Von Clausewitz); you should win wars if your country is better prepared politically and economically for war, has developed apposite doctrines etc. There is some strategy in how you deploy and balance your units, but that is also related to your country's unique situation (terrain etc) and doesn't overshadow the work you did in advance to prepare your country for war and the political mood of the population.

If you have a battle system that is a mini game in itself, with a rule system that has little bearing on the political and economic situation, then it devalues those aspects of the game. The allies won the second world war, not because of the genius of generals such as Patton, but because of the vast resources of Russia and the industrial might of the United States (not to mention blunders in the German High Command). There was some strategy involved, of course, but at the high level of a grand strategy game the decisions you should be making are high level ones, to do with the movement and logistics for whole armies over the entire globe, not having to micromanage individual units in real time.

Originally Posted by Roq
If you have a battle system that is a mini game in itself, with a rule system that has little bearing on the political and economic situation, then it devalues those aspects of the game. The allies won the second world war, not because of the genius of generals such as Patton, but because of the vast resources of Russia and the industrial might of the United States (not to mention blunders in the German High Command). There was some strategy involved, of course, but at the high level of a grand strategy game the decisions you should be making are high level ones, to do with the movement and logistics for whole armies over the entire globe, not having to micromanage individual units in real time.

You can't underestimate the importance of tactics in a wargame - that's not reasonable.

I agree that EU and games of a similar scope should focus on the higher strategic level - but that doesn't mean it's ok that the combat system is abstract, intangible and boring. If it's not entertaining, then just don't have it - change it - or omit it entirely.

If you're going to have a combat system - and whether you like it or not, warfare is actually quite a significant aspect of EU, and lots of players enjoy the gameplay of fighting other nations - you should take care that it's entertaining.

A good example is how Dominions 3 handles war - because that game is similarly massive in scope as EU. You can delve into war if you care to - and you can focus on setting up your army in reasonable detail - but you don't actually have to spend much time on it at all, if you have no interest in it.

That's a good system where everything is quite tangible and visible. You SEE what's happening and you're never in doubt about where your units are and what they're doing.

As for WW2:

Yes, the war was inevitably lost after the battle of Stalingrad - but there's no denying the MASSIVE impact of the German Blitzkrieg and superior tactics during the first years of the war. There are countless examples of how brilliant tactics turned the tides of war - even if it was only temporary.

If having more resources is all that matters - then most EU games would be decided long before they ended, which would be boring.

In HoI3 - you have the ability to turn things around by using fewer units better than those who have more units. That way, you'll acquire more resources and you will eventually turn things around, if you keep at it.

So, pretending that tactics aren't vital is a very big mistake. Tactical ability is ESSENTIAL unless everything is unquestionably doomed from the beginning - which was definitely NOT the case for Germany in WW2.

A game like HoI3 needs a satisfying tactical layer to uphold the standards of a wargame - which is basically what it is. The entire game revolves around an ongoing world war and there's no way to get around that.

Weird thread. I could read recently that old school gaming was about retaining what was good in the old school games etc Yet now improvement over several iterations is condemned… Go figure.

Many games can not be done right or extensively in one go. Paradox build on the same structure but they add substantial improvements every time. Improvements that could not be done the first time.

If you want a game that is released every year, that provides little to no improvement over the previous iteration, that is the football manager series.

Good to see that this site is turning more and more to wargaming as so many posters here are actually wargamers labelling themselves RPGers…

Originally Posted by cptbarkey
Its not a game, its rolling dice ten thousand times.

Strange opinion as rolling dice should be a must have for players who insist for their turn based games. Turn based games (actually the turn sequence UGOIGO) do so much for randomness. Randomness is the essence of the UGOIGO sequence…

As I stated, I like to see more options for combat in EU games.I don't won't fully active combat like in total war series(which don't get me wrong is good series)but some small options like synchronization of attacks from multiple provinces(present in HoI 3)would be good imo.Option for manual position divisions in march of eagles(last game in Clausewitz engine I can recommend it to people trying to get in Paradox grand strategies ) was nice but it required some knowladge of how warfare of that time worked.

Originally Posted by Nameless one
As I stated like to see more options for combat in EU games.I don't won't fully active combat like in total war series(which don't get me wrong is good series)but some small options like synchronization of attacks from multiple provinces(present in HoI 3)would be good imo.Option for manual position divisions in march of eagles(last game in Clausewitz engine I can recommend it to people trying to get in Paradox grand strategies ) was nice but it required some knowladge of how warfare of that time worked.

Well, maybe I'm not the right person to comment - because I don't like the abstract nature of Paradox games in general.

I think it's a concession given the small team and the necessity of re-using a very, very old engine for everything they do. Ok, they've made it much more visually appealing over the years - but the core is more or less identical.

I don't think they WANT the game to be that abstract - and fans defending it deserve a good dose of scepticism. Certainly, I don't think there are that many people who actually prefer the abstract over the tangible.

But but, as for the combat system - I think it would be wise to implement something like Dominions 3.

As in, you setup tactics and unit formations BEFORE combat - and you create "armies" of which you don't have to have all that many. Then you depend on the AI during battles - but you don't actually have to witness anything. You can basically skip the entire ordeal of warfare if you so desire.

But you COULD delve into it in detail - and go crazy with tactical setups and what not. Well, you could if they implemented such a system - and that would be a happy compromise.

I could go on about the awful unit movement system in EU (not sure if EU4 is different) - but ever since the first EU (yes, I've played CK2 as well) - they've been using that awful system where units don't actually visibly move - they just have arrows pointing to their destination. Battles also tend to end without you knowing the details - and your army is just fleeing to another area - and it can be hard to see the big picture amidst everything.

I think the entire system needs a total re-write - but again, I'm not their target audience - and I'm not one to enjoy the same game over and over again.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I don't think they WANT the game to be that abstract - and fans defending it deserve a good dose of scepticism. Certainly, I don't think there are that many people who actually prefer the abstract over the tangible.

On the contrary, I think they fully intend a level of abstraction, In fact that's the whole point of grand strategy games - you aren't concerned with the details of what every member of your population is doing. This is the main problem with the Civ genre, the games have increased in complexity, but they haven't abstracted away the details, you still have to manage every one of your units independently. That's fine at the start of the game when you have one or two cities, but as your empire grows the micromanagement burden becomes onerous. Who are you meant to be in Civ - are you the ruler of a mega civilisation or sergeant Bilko with his catapult squad or Fred the oil spillage cleaner?

Originally Posted by Roq
On the contrary, I think they fully intend a level of abstraction, In fact that's the whole point of grand strategy games - you aren't concerned with the details of what every member of your population is doing. This is the main problem with the Civ genre, the games have increased in complexity, but they haven't abstracted away the details, you still have to manage every one of your units independently. That's fine at the start of the game when you have one or two cities, but as your empire grows the micromanagement burden becomes onerous. Who are you meant to be in Civ - are you the ruler of a mega civilisation or sergeant Bilko with his catapult squad or Fred the oil spillage cleaner?

I'm not saying they don't want a certain level of abstraction - but that I think they want to move away from the high "slider" level as it is - as has been pointed out several times.

I don't know why this has turned into "Civ does everything right" - but that's certainly not my opinion.

I fully agree that Civ 5 has too much micromanagment - but that has nothing to do with being tangible.

You can give players the option - and that's what I'd prefer.

Civ should have moved away from individual units long ago, and they should have armies composed of ranged, melee, artillery and so on instead.

Also, they should have done away with workers and copied what Call to Power did with a "resource pool".

But you should still have tangible control over how you develop your infrastructure and resources - as well as how you conduct warfare. You shouldn't be forced to do it - but you should definitely have the opinion.

If you truly prefer the "slider gameplay" in EU4 to something more tangible, then that's fair enough - I just doubt you represent the majority.

As for realistically portraying what it would be like to rule an empire - do you seriously meant to suggest that's MORE entertaining without things like warfare?

Realistically, the people in power make very few REAL macro-level decisions (they delegate based on council and choose between what informed people give them in terms of options) and almost no micro-level decisions. The rest of the time is spent maintaining their public image, enjoying power, sitting around eating luxury food and bedding young women. You think that makes for good gameplay? That's silly.

In EU - you're not REALLY playing a single ruler - you're representing all the key individuals involved in politics, diplomacy, research, warfare and so on. You're not imitating a single person in terms of a a "realistic" portrayal.

I'm with Roq here. The game's strengths are what they are. I certainly wouldn't want a Dom battle system awkwardly thrown on top, and I think you'd see riots over at the Paradox forums if that happened. I actually like the combat system in most of the games as is, though I wish Vicky 2 had a decent supply system. I don't play Hoi, so that's the exception.

As for the debate on Paradox's level of innovation, I just think you're wrong. Compare upcoming EUIV with EU2, and you'll find an entirely different game. Compare Civ 5 with Civ 3, and the only major differences are one unit per tile, global happiness, and city states. The first two are steps back, and thelast, while good in theory, doesn't work quite right in practice. This is all my opinion of course. However, if you add in CK2 and Vic2, there's simply no comparison in terms of the sequels changing things up.

Teh, I loved EU3… but Paradox NEVER EVER has released an even halfway bug-free game. So caution and waiting are the virtues of the day, I say.

Also, some changes didn't sound so well to me. For instance, they said armies would be way more expensive, slowing down war. Slowing down? MORE?? So I said 50 virtual years doing nothing, waiting for money and population to replentish? Yeah, that is certainy realistic, but… sorry I dont play games to watch some auto-simulation. So aim quite spectical about this "new realism"… More realism in games means in 9 out of 10 cases more boredom. If I wanted real life, I wouldn't BE here in the first place! =P

I like the approach of Paradox games, really. But some of their games, like Victoria 2, were too much just like an Excel chart, lol, and too less of a game. I just felt too close of my brain to explode, just by looking at it. XD

I've played most Paradox titles (sans the HOI series that doesnt interest me) since EU1, and the team has come a long way in terms of polish.

EU3 and HOI3 (in particular) were the last games with issues on release. EU: Rome, Victoria 2, and Crusader Kings 2 were all reasonably low on bugs upon release.

Games from the same engine generation are similar, but the different series certainly feel different enough. Crusader Kings (with man management) and Victoria (with economy and politics) certainly feel different enough to warrant different franchises. I get the same vibes from my old favourites MPS labs in the early 90s.

Their DLC strategy is a worse issue. CK2 was fine without DLC, but EU3 was not according to reports I trust (by the time I got the game it had two expansions and was very good)…

Originally Posted by Roq
On the contrary, I think they fully intend a level of abstraction, In fact that's the whole point of grand strategy games - you aren't concerned with the details of what every member of your population is doing.

Exactly, criticising this (and comparing the game to Civ or Total War) misses the point of those franchises. Paradox has found a niche without competition (simulation of a world with a few hundred independent actors, as opposed to the 5 or so "nations" fighting for world domination in Civ) and moving in those directions would put give them competition from teams with vastly superior resources, while risking the old fanbase.

Being the only player in their niche means that they do ok even if the games dont really have mass market appeal.

Actually, I'm underlining the fact that they're doing ok by milking the same engine over and over again.

I'm criticising the high level of abstraction because I honestly doubt that's the part of their games the fans prefer. I think they enjoy the scope and breadth of features - as well as the strong historical flavor.

But I truly doubt most of you REALLY prefer adjusting sliders to having your hands in the thick of things.

Originally Posted by Nameless one
As I stated, I like to see more options for combat in EU games.I don't won't fully active combat like in total war series(which don't get me wrong is good series)but some small options like synchronization of attacks from multiple provinces(present in HoI 3)would be good imo.Option for manual position divisions in march of eagles(last game in Clausewitz engine I can recommend it to people trying to get in Paradox grand strategies ) was nice but it required some knowladge of how warfare of that time worked.

It must fit the era. As CK2 progressed, armies are more likely to march at the sounds of the drums so you can time by yourself the synchronization of multiple armies.But again, the automatization of the option does not belong to the era.

I think giving players hands on control of battles would completely disrupt the difficulty/balance of their games. It would require a massive overhaul that I don't think is needed. After all, if they weren't profitable, they wouldn't be in business. I personally don't have a problem with the hands off approach because I can always get my fill of hands on elsewhere.

I agree the games recycle tons of stuff from the previous editions. Paradox does tend to flesh out/polish features from prior editions through expansions/DLCs which carry into the next edition. EU 4 will be less of an evolution from EU 3 Complete than EU 4 with DLCs will be by far. That model is by far my biggest complaint about their games. $40 for the game, another $40 - $60 or so for all the inevitable expansions if you're buying everything new.